Malti vs Dharam Raj Singh - 2023 Supreme(All) 2319

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 2319

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J.
Smt. Malti and Others - Appellants
Versus
Dharam Raj Singh and Another - Respondents
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 402 OF 1997.
Decided On : 26-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant : Piyush Misra, Vineet Kumar Singh.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation claim - Appellants challenged the award of Rs.86,400/- by Tribunal, arguing for higher compensation based on deceased's income and future prospects - Tribunal awarded based on monthly salary of Rs.1,200/- and multiplier of 12 - Appellants contended deserved multiplier of 15, adjusted for future loss of income and non-pecuniary damages - Total compensation recalculated to Rs.7,58,800/- with interest at 6% from the date of claim petition - Interest draft pertains to taxation considerations, noting Tax Deducted at Source implications based on prevailing laws (Paras 1, 10, 11, 14).

(B) Appeal - The court's role in appeal is to reassess compensation and ensure it addresses the heirs' needs while ensuring principles of just compensation are upheld (Paras 2, 12).

Facts of the case:
Claimants filed for compensation following fatal accident involving deceased. Income was debated between claimants and insurance company, ultimately resolved by adjustments and appellate considerations of both current earnings and future economic loss determinations.

Findings of Court:
Appeal partly allowed, substantial reassessment led to increased compensation, reflective of current judgments and legal precedents concerning remuneration, multipliers, and injuries sustained by dependents.

Issues: The key issues revolved around appropriate compensation for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages in the light of legal standards and practices from earlier judgments.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized continuous legal precedent establishing the necessity to adjust settlements for a fair reflection of loss incurred and future risk offsets.

Result: Appeal partly allowed, compensation modified and directed to be deposited within 12 weeks with interest.

Table of Content
1. appeal against compensation awarded for a road accident. (Para 1 , 3)
2. negligence in the accident not in dispute. (Para 5)
3. arguments on income assessment and damages. (Para 6 , 8 , 9)
4. defense on income claims from the insurance company. (Para 7)
5. computation of total compensation based on established principles. (Para 10)
6. rate of interest on enhanced compensation. (Para 11)
7. modification of tribunal's decree. (Para 12)
8. procedural directions for payment and interest allocation. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)

JUDGMENT

Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

By way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and decree dated 20.1.1997 and 11.2.1997 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / 1st Additional District Judge, Mau (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No.33 of 1992 (Malti and others v. Dharam Raj Singh and another) awarding sum of Rs.86,400/- as compensation to the claimants/appellants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the amount is deposited.

2. Heard Mr.Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Anubhav Sinha, learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

3. The brief facts of the case are that claimants-appellants filed a Motor Accident Claim Petition before the Tribunal for claiming the compensation under MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 for the death of Narsingh Nishad in a road accident with the averments that on 25.03.1992, deceased was going to Mau on bicycle as a pillion rider, a bus bearing No. UP-65/9990 hit the deceased. In this accident, deceased sustained very serious injuries and died in the hospital at Dohri Ghat. The Tribunal considered the income of the deceased as Rs.1,200/- per month, deducted 1/2 as personal expenses, applied multiplier of 12. Total compensation granted by the Tribunal is Rs.86,400/- with 9% rate of interest.

4. Aggrieved mainly with the compensation awarded, the appellants preferred this appeal in the year 1997.

5. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence has attained finality as neither the Insurance Company nor the owner of the vehicles have disputed the same even in oral submissions. The driver of the said vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident is also a decided fact. The vehicle being insured and there being no breach of policy condition is a finding, which has attained finality. The only issue to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

6. Shri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has submitted that the deceased was a skilled-labourer and, therefore, his income should be considered as Rs.5,333/- per month. It is further submitted that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi [2014 (4) TAC 673 (SC)], 40% for future prospects be added and the deduction instead of 1/2 should be 1/3. It is next submitted that the multiplier would be 15 instead of 12 as the deceased was about 33-37 years old and Rs.70,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages be also granted.

7. Shri Anubhav Sinha, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, vehemently submitted that in the year 1992, as far as State of UP is concerned, the Motor Vehicles Rules were being followed and there is no question of adding the amount under the head of future loss of income and the multiplier is an established schedule. It is further argued that the income has rightly been considered by the Tribunal as it was not proved that the income of the deceased was Rs.5,333/- per month.

8. The income of the deceased can be considered to be Rs.3,000/- per month being minimum for an agriculturist. The deceased will fall in the category of self employed and his age was about 33-37 years at the time of accident, hence 40% shall have to be added towards future loss of income and 1/3 shall be deducted for personal expenses as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v.